On 2013-01-10 18:48, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 1:28 AM, Dr. Olaf Hoffmann <Dr.O.Hoffmann@gmx.de> wrote:
>> Tab Atkins Jr.:
>>> SVG Fonts is getting dropped from SVG2
>>
>> Rick:
>>> That's a huge disappointment.
>>
>> Charles Lamont:
>>> I think I half-understood there was to be some other horrible convoluted
>>> mechanism to achieve roughly the same functionality?
>>
>> The usual way is to convert the complete text in arbitrary path data and
>> to use this path data as a replacement for the text.
>> To be accessible of course, one has to add the text additionally within
>> a desc, title or meta element again, what is pretty inefficient - and often
>> not added automatically with the programs doing the conversion.
>> The other problem is obviously, that one cannot edit such a converted
>> text in a simple way with a text editor, practically one needs a program
>> to convert and to edit (better one stores the orgin and edits this instead
>> of the SVG), therefore one can interprete this as one step more in a
>> direction, that SVG may become an inaccessible format one uses only as
>> data dump format - changes are done on other documents. With
>> specific programs one can have a conversion and output as SVG, if required.
>> This is comparable with the usage of postscript or portable document format
>> today.
>
> Or, as stated earlier in this thread, embed SVG outlines in an
> OpenType table, which already works in Firefox.
>
> ~TJ
But mere font outlines is to completely miss the the reason for wanting
SVG fonts. It is all the other possibilities that make them attractive
to the end user.
I have had a few private emails suggesting there is a fair amount of end
user desire for this functionality, and dismay that is being kicked into
the long grass again, or even into oblivion. Why is it so painful to
implement anyway (as non-technical as possible, please)?
--
Charles Lamont